logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 Ker HC 151 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court of Kerala
Case No : WP(C) No. 1110 of 2023
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN
Parties : Balakrishnan Versus The Alappuzha Municipality, Office Of The Alappuzha Municipality, Represented By Its Secretary & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: George Sebastian, Jayan. C. Das, Advocates. For the Respondents: R. Azad Babu, Advocate.
Date of Judgment : 23-01-2026
Head Note :-
Comparative Citation:
2026 KER 6207,
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules / Orders Mentioned:


2. Catch Words:
- hearing
- interim order
- stay
- set aside
- direction
- status quo

3. Summary:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking certiorari to quash Exhibits P2 and P3, alleging they were passed without a hearing. The Court earlier stayed further proceedings on Exhibit P3 for a month, extending the stay intermittently. Upon review, the Court found merit in the petitioner's grievance and ordered that Exhibits P2 and P3 be set aside. It directed the competent authority to rehear the matter, providing the petitioner a sufficient opportunity of hearing, and to decide within two months of receiving the certified judgment. The status quo as of the date of the order is to be maintained until final orders are passed. The petition is thus disposed with these directions.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Allowed
Judgment :-

1. The above writ petition is filed with following prayers:

                  i.        “To issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to Exts. P2 and P3 and to quash the same.

                  ii.       To dispense with the  production of  English translation of Vernacular documents.

                  iii. To grant such other reliefs as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper.” [sic]

2. The main grievance of the petitioner is that Exts.P2 and P3 orders are passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is true that a statement is filed by respondent nos. 1 to 3 and a reply is also filed. A perusal of Exts.P2 and P3 would not show that it is an order passed after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. When this writ petition came up for consideration before this Court on 13.1.2023, this Court passed the following order:

                  “Petitioner submits that Exhibit P3 has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Admit.

                  Standing Counsel takes notice for the respondents.

                  There  will be an interim order of staying all further proceedings of Exhibit P3 for a period of one month.”

3. The interim order is regularly extended. I am of the considered opinion that this writ petition need not be retained here. The impugned orders can be set aside and there can be a direction to reconsider the matter, after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

                  Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions :

                  1) Exts.P2 and P3 are set aside.

                  2) The competent authority among the respondents will reconsider the matter after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

                  3) Status quo as on today shall be maintained till final orders are passed as directed above.
 
  CDJLawJournal